Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Niwas Saini S/O Bajrang Lal Saini vs The State Of Rajasthan on 16 December, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Uma Shanker Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7160/2020
1. Ram Niwas Saini S/o Bajrang Lal Saini, Aged About 47
Years, R/o 47, Ganesh Vihar, Kvp Purv, Jamdoli, Agra
Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Ajay Pal Singh S/o Dalpat Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Rajputo Ka Bas, Sedriya Balotran, Jalore (Raj.)
3. Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Ramniwas Sharma, Aged About
34 Years, Near Panchayat Samiti, Anta, Baran (Raj.)
4. Ajit Mundel S/o Jagdish, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Talab
Ka Rasta Marwar Mundwa, Merwer Mundwa, Nagaur
(Raj.)
5. Ashok Kumar Pandey S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 34 Years, Buntoli Baniyana, Dausa (Raj.)
6. Bhagu Ram Mahala S/o Bodu Ram Mahala, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Sabalpura, Via Kuchanmancity, Nagaur
(Raj.)
7. Banwari Lal Mali S/o Noratmal Mali, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o 157, Bagwal Ki Dhani, Ghati Road, Malpura, Tonk
(Raj.)
8. Bhojraj Jangid S/o Satyanarayan Jangid, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Satra, Churu (Raj.)
9. Ranveer Singh Gurjar S/o Kajodmal Gurjar, Aged About
34 Years, Dhoret, Har Rampura Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur
(Raj.)
10. Bajarang Lal S/o Hanuman Singh, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Ladhro Ki Dhani Kerwali, Neem Ka Thana, Charwas,
Puranawas, Sikar (Raj.)
11. Dharmpal S/o Dungar Das, Aged About 46 Years, R/ov-6
Apd Sri Vijayanagar, Sriganganagar (Raj.)
12. Devi Singh Thanak S/o Bhikam Chand Thanak, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Thanako Ka Bas, Khichan, Jodhpur
(Raj.)
13. Dinesh Kumar S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Sutaro Ka Mohalla, Guradiya Kalan, Jhalawar (Raj.)
14. Gaurav Kumar Sharma S/o Ramnarayan Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Basdev Nagar, Dausa (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(2 of 14) [CW-7160/2020]
15. Goparam S/o Ghewar Ram Dewasi, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o 79 Raiko Ki Dhani, Tarbadiya Kalan, Hiradeshar,
Jodhpur (Raj.)
16. Govind Kumar Sharma S/o Hanuman Sahai Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o 12 Krishna Colony, Sushilpura, Near
Durgamandi, Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.)
17. Hari Ram Gil S/o Ladu Ram Gil, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Ward No.2, Kemri Ki Dhani, Khirod, Nawalgarh,
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
18. Hemant Kumar Acharya S/o Motilal, Aged About 30 Years,
Sarada Chawand, Udaipur (Raj.)
19. Jagdish Prasad Jangid S/o Kumbha Ram Jangir, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Ward No.3, Near Thakur Ji Ka Mandir,
Gorisar, Churu (Raj.)
20. Jitendra Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Ward No.6, Chaiya Rawatsar, Hanumangarh (Raj.)
21. Jitendra Singh S/o Sadhu Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Basedi, Dholpur (Raj.)
22. Kailash Kumar Yadav S/o Bhagwan Lal Yadav, Aged About
47 Years, R/o Ward No.6, Patela Marg Via Near School,
Dungarur (Raj.)
23. Kamlesh S/o Dulichand, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Primary Health Centerwala Mohalla, Raithal, Baran (Raj.)
24. Kapil Kumar Sen S/o Shyam Sunder Sen, Aged About 26
Years, R/o R.k.puram, Kota (Raj.)
25. Kuldeep Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o 8/165, Shikshak Colony, Gupteshwar Road,
Dausa (Raj.)
26. Lalit Kumar S/o Satyanarayan Verma, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Mahaveer Bhawan, Chod Upasara Ki Gali,
Kuchaman City, Nagaur (Raj.)
27. Laxmi Lal Kalal S/o Bhagu Ji Kalal, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Vpo, Bhorai, Via Intali Kheda, Tehsil Semari, District
Udaipur (Raj.)
28. Laxmi Lal Kalal S/o Mohan Lal Kalal, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Vpo Jhadol Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.)
29. Lavlesh Kumar Gour S/o Rajendra Prasad Gour, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Katara Mohalla Neaer Town Post
Office Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(3 of 14) [CW-7160/2020]
30. Lokesh Prajapat S/o Narayan Lal, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Dhimani Jhadol, Udaipur (Raj.)
31. Mahavir Prasad Nagar S/o Harishankar Nagar, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Bamori Kalan, Mangrol, Baran (Raj.)
32. Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Charan Yadav, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Tehla Suhana, Degod, Kota (Raj.)
33. Narottam Lal Purohit S/o Late Sh.prabhu Lal Purohit,
Jagat Magri, Udaipur (Raj.)
34. Nakul Jain S/o Rakesh Chandra Jain, Aged About 34
Years, Nehru Bazar, Near Post Office, Rishabhdev,
Kherwada, Udaipur
35. Pawan Kumar Meena S/o Ram Pratap Meena, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Tisaya Mangrol, Baran (Raj.)
36. Pramod Kumar Sharma S/o Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Anaj Mandi, Vajirpur, Sawaimadhopur
(Raj.)
37. Prakash Kadela S/o Pusaram Kadela, Aged About 34
Years, R/o S-25 Loko Colony, Samdari Jhibana, Barmer
(Raj.)
38. Rajendra Kumar Saini S/o Rugaram, Aged About 30
Years, Sahwa, Taranagar, Churu (Raj.)
39. Rajesh S/o Hanuman, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Chhani
Badi, Hanumangarh (Raj.)
40. Rajkumar S/o Deda Ram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)
41. Rakesh Kumar S/o Pat Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Ward No.12, Near Mandir Hariram, Goluwala Niwadan,
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
42. Rakesh Kumar Rahad S/o Sh.chand Rahad, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Ladusar, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
43. Ram Chandra Saini S/o Jagdish Prasad Saini, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Sanikuwa Pakodiya, Ward No.11, Vpo
Nangal, Via Udaipurvati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
44. Ramlal Lodha S/o Devi Lal Lodha, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Lakshmipura, Amedha Aklera, Jhalawar (Raj.)
45. Ram Prakash Sharma S/o Lala Ram, Aged About 40
Years, 15, Dhandhala Ki Dhani, Birajpura, Jaipur (Raj.)
46. Ram Singh Rathore, S/o Ajeet Singh, Aged About 41
Years, R/o S.o.k. Diagnostic Centre, Rajpath Marg,
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(4 of 14) [CW-7160/2020]
Sambhar Lack, Jaipur
47. Ravindra Kumar Sharma S/o Nathu Lal, Aged About 43
Years, R/o 2/280, Housing Board Colony, Sawai Madhopur
(Raj.)
48. Sanjay Bhim Singh S/o Kan Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Nepa Ka Bas , Amrabad, Dausa (Raj.)
49. Shailendra Joshi S/o Champa Lal Joshi, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Udai Sagar Choraha, Bichhadi, Udaipur (Raj.)
50. Sohan Lal S/o Lal Chand, Aged About 28 Years, Bala
Rajpura, 46 Rbb Padampur, Sriganganagar (Raj.)
51. Suman Byamal D/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Shithal, Udaipurwati, Jhunujhunu (Raj.)
52. Sunil Dangi S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Govindpura Jakhira, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
53. Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Sanwar Mal Sharma, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Ward No.23, Janta Colony, Ajitgarh,
Sikar (Raj.)
54. Sunil Kumar Tiwari S/o Shashi Dular Tiwari, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Tiwari Pada, Todabhim, Karauli (Raj.)
55. Suraj Kumar Bairwa S/o Ramesh Chand Bairwa, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Malagbas Khuri Kala, Dausa (Raj.)
56. Surendra Kumar S/o Mahaveer Soukhl, Aged About 30
Years, R/o P.no.359, Vpo 3 E, Choti Gali No.4, Ssb Road,
Ganganagar (Raj.)
57. Suwa Lal Choudhary S/o Shiv Karan Choudhary, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Village Tikel Naukan, Tehsil Phagi,
Jaipur (Raj.)
58. Vinod Rathore S/o Suresh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Mandola Ward, Near Masjid, Baran (Raj.)
59. Abdul Jahid S/o Abdul Raffiq, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
736, Mehandipura Dug, Jhalawar (Raj.)
60. Abdul Khaliq S/o Abdul Rashid, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Nai Abadi, Village Dug, Tehsil Gangdhar, District Jhalawar
(Raj.)
61. Mohammad Aslam S/o Mohammad Asgar, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Naya Bas, Jhunjjunu (Raj.)
62. Mohammad Sabir S/o Jafar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Ward No.8, Near Saini Guest House, Ratangarh, Churu
(Raj.)
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(5 of 14) [CW-7160/2020]
63. Mukim Ahmed S/o Abdul Majid, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Ward No.12, Chomahla, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar (Raj.)
64. Sheru Mohammad S/o Mohammed Hanif, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Near Moti Masjid, Manohar Thana, Jhalawar
(Raj.)
65. Yunus Beg S/o Majoor Beg, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Ward No.20, Nardiyan Mohalla, Rajgarh, Sardulpur, Churu
(Raj.)
66. Lalit Kumar Mehar S/o Kanhaiya Lal Mehar, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Near Gayatri Mandir, Devar Bakani,
Jhalawar (Raj.)
67. Prakash Chandra Bairwa S/o Ramesh Chand Bairwa, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Malangbas Khurri Kala, Dausa (Raj.)
68. Sunil Kumar Dhetarwal S/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Taranagar, Churu (Raj.)
69. Harshad Dave S/o Devi Lal Dave, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Brahmin Mohalla, Chopasag, Banswara (Raj.)
70. Shahid Khan S/o Shafi Khan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Shahjusar, Churu (Raj.)
71. Imran Khan S/o Amiruddin, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Jugnu Colony, Pidawa, Jhalawar (Raj.)
72. Vikal Yadav S/o Ram Niwas Yadav, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o 64/476, Pratap Nagar Housing Board, Sanganer,
Jaipur.
73. Saiyad Manjur Ali S/o Haidar Ali, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Sunail, Tehsil Pidawa, Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.).
74. Udai Deep Singh S/o Chandra Singh, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Bajigaro Ka Mohalla, Godara Bas, Fatehgarh,
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
75. Yogesh Kumar S/o Ramgopal Rahi, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o Lakheri, Bundi (Raj.)
76. Abdul Karim S/o Shankar, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Near
Garmpura Masjid, Lakheri, Bundi (Raj.)
77. Suresh Kumar S/o Gordhan Ram, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Berla, Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
78. Jitendra Sahu S/o Ramavtar Sahu, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Ambika Colony, Teliyon Ka Talab,tonk.
79. Dinesh Kumar Vashishtha S/o Shri Kedar Nath Sharma,
Aged About 44 Years, R/o Taksal Ki Gali, Near Girls School
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(6 of 14) [CW-7160/2020]
Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jan Path, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur
4. Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Through Its Registrar, G-
1, Kisan Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13281/2018
1. Vikal Yadav Father/o Ram Niwas Yadav, Aged About 42
Years, R/o 64/476, Pratap Nagar Housing Board,
Sanganer, Jaipur
2. Sachin Pandey Father/o Om Prakas Pandey, Aged About
47 Years, R/o House No.a-32, Chetak Vihar-A, Jamdoli,
Luniwas, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Gamdoor Singh Father/o Jasvant Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Ward No.1, Hinawali 7 Dlp, Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
4. Laxmi Lal Kalal Father/o Mohan Lal Kalal, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vpo Jhadol Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur
(Raj.)
5. Mukesh Kumar Prajapat Father/o Badrilal Prajapat, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Ward No.2, Ratlam Road, Vpo
Nogawan District Pratapgarh (Raj.)
6. Ram Chandra Saini Father/o Jagdish Prasad Saini, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Sanikuwa Pakodiya, Ward No.11, Vpo
Nangal, Via Udaipurvati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
7. Dinesh Kumar Father/o Madan Lal, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o 40, Sutaro Ka Mohalla, Guadiya Kalan, Jhalawar
(Raj.)
8. Anil Kumar Sharma Father/o Ram Niwas Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Panchayat Samiti Ke Pass, Anta,
District Baran (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(7 of 14) [CW-7160/2020]
9. Surendra Kumar Father/o Mahaveer Soukhl, Aged About
28 Years, R/o P.no.359, Vpo 3 E, Choti Gali No.4, Ssb
Road, Ganganagar (Raj.)
10. Ram Niwas Saini Father/o Bajrang Lal Saini, Aged About
35 Years, R/o 47, Ganesh Vihar, Kvp Purv, Jamdoli, Agra
Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
11. Rakesh Kumar Father/o Pat Ram, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Ward No.12, Near Mandir Hariram, Goluwala
Niwadan, Hanumangarh (Raj.)
12. Bhagu Ram Mahala Father/o Bodu Ram Mahala, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Sabalura, Via Kuchanmancity,
Nagaur (Raj.)
13. Laxmi Lal Kalal Father/o Bhagu Ji Kalal, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Vpo, Bhorai, Via Intali Kheda, Tehsil Semari,
District Udaipur (Raj.)
14. Guman Singh Father/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Kelwara, District Baran (Raj.)
15. Parmeshwar Kumar Payak Father/o Rajendra Kumar
Payak, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Rajnagar, District
Rajsamand (Raj.)
16. Rajkumar Bose Father/o Deda Ram Bose, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)
17. Rajendra Kumar Saini Father/o Ruga Ram Saini, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Sahaba Tehsil Taranagar, District
Churu (Raj.)
18. Rajkumar Arya Father/o Prema Ram Arya, Aged About 40
Years, R/o 676, Patiya Bhim, Tehsil Bhim, District
Rajsamand (Raj.)
19. Jagdish Prasad Father/o Devi Lal, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Ward No.6, Ramdev Mandir Road, Bhawna School Ke
Pass, Suratgarh, Ganganagar (Raj.)
20. Dhanraj Nagar Father/o Mohan Lal Nagar, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Thakur Ji Ke Mandir Ke Pass, Village Rani
Heda, Post Bada, Samaspur Lisadia, District Baran (Raj.)
21. Abdul Khaliq Father/o Abdul Rashid, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Nayi Abadi, Village Dag, Tehsil Gangdhar, District
Jhalawar (Raj.)
22. Shri Krishan Chejara Father/o Banshidhar Chejara, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Wared No.19, Shastri Nagar, Losal,
Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(8 of 14) [CW-7160/2020]
23. Yogesh Kumar Father/o Ram Gopal Rahi, Aged About 53
Years, R/o Ward No.5, Charan Das Ke Balaji, Ganeshpura,
Lakherigaon, Bundi (Raj.)
24. Jitendra Kumar Sahu Father/o Ramavtar Sahu, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Ambika Colony, Tonk (Raj.)
25. Brijesh Kumar Father/o Latoor Lal Mehra, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Neeche Ka Mohalla, Gandhpura, Lakheri
District Bundi (Raj.)
26. Abdul Karim Father/o Shakoor, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Ward No.21, Garmapura, Lakheri, Indergarh, Bundi (Raj.)
27. Ram Singh Rathore Father/o Ajit Singh Rathore, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Rajput Ka Mohalla, Moondgasoi,
Nagaur (Raj.)
28. Anil Kumar Father/o Krishan Lal, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Vpo Nyolkhi, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
29. Mandeep Singh Father/o Baltes Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Ward No.11, Chistiyan, 2 Jdw, Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
30. Suwa Lal Choudhary Father/o Shiv Karan Choudhary,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Tikel Naukan, Tehsil
Phagi, Jaipur (Raj.)
31. Mukesh Patidar Father/o Bheru Lal Patidar, Aged About 30
Years, R/0 Plot 235, Ward 10 Teh.- Nimach, Mohalla
Kheriya Nimach Kalan, Madhya Pradesh
32. Pankaj Mathur Father/o Shami Mathur, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Pankaj Vilas , 386, Bapu Nagar Vistar Near
Bhuri Pali (Raj.)
33. Lavlesh Kumar Gour Father/o Rajendra Prasad Gour, Aged
About 44 Years, R/o Katara Mohalla Neaer Town Post
Office Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
34. Surendra Singh Father/o Jaswant Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Mokhampura, Post Chotarasi, District
Pratapgarh
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(9 of 14) [CW-7160/2020]
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jan Path, Jaipur
3. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
4. Rajasthan Para Medical Council Through Its Registrar, G-
1, Kisan Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13350/2018
1. Ram Singh Rawat Father/o Shri Ram Karan Rawat, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Dhani Ramawali (Kharkhada) Post
Shyampura, Tehsil Bansur
2. Krishan Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Ram Karan Rawat, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Dhani Ramawali (Kharkhada) Post
Shyampura
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Service, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan Through Plrincipal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rasjasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director Medical And Health Services, Jaipur.
4. Additional Director (Administration) Medical And Health
Services, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah
Mr. Harendra Meel
Mr. Mahendra Sharma
Mr. Akshat Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia on behalf of
Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG
Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
16/12/2021
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(10 of 14) [CW-7160/2020]
The petitioners have challenged the notification dated
30/08/2013 issued by the State Government making amendment
in the existing recruitment rules prescribing eligibility criteria for
the post of Assistant Radiographer in Medical and Health
Department of the State Government. Brief facts are as under:-
The petitioners hold the qualification of Secondary School
Certificate and the Radiography course from the government
recognised institute. They have been engaged on contractual basis
as Assistant Radiographers since the year 2013 and are working in
such capacity since then. It is undisputed that prior to the year
2013 the educational qualifications required for the post in
question were Secondary or its equivalent with 18 months
radiographer course pass. By virtue of the impugned notification
dated 30/08/2013 the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate
Service Rules, 1965 came to be amended. In relation to the
Assistant Radiographers the changes brought about were that the
post would now be filled up entirely through direct recruitment
instead of 50% through direct recruitment and 50% through
promotion as was previously done. The eligibility criteria were also
changed to "Senior Secondary (Science) with either Biology or
Mathematics or its equivalent qualification with Radiography
course passed from an institute recognised by the State
Government/Central Government/Rajasthan Para Medical Council;
and registered in the Rajasthan Para Medical Council." Obviously
since the petitioners do not possess these qualifications, the State
Government does not consider them eligible for the post in
question. On the basis of these amended recruitment rules the
State Government has initiated the recruitment process on the
available vacant posts. The petitioners have therefore at that
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(11 of 14) [CW-7160/2020]
stage filed the present petition and challenged the amendments
made in the recruitment rules by the impugned notification dated
30/08/2013.
Main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner
was that the State Government has no authority to prescribe independent eligibility criteria for the post in question since the field is occupied by central legislation in connection with the subject which falls in List I to the 7 th Schedule of the Constitution. Our attention was drawn to the Union List (List 1); 7 th Schedule in which Entry 6 pertains to atomic energy and mineral resources necessary for its production. Our attention was also drawn to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. Section 2(h) of the Act defines the term "radiation" as to mean gamma rays, X-rays and rays consisting of alpha particles, beta particles, neutrons, protons and other nuclear and sub-atomic particles, but not sound or radio waves, or visible, infrared or ultraviolet light.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew our attention to a communication dated 26/11/2012 from the Chairman of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board along with which AERB safety code was amended. Under these amendments for X-Rays Technologists the revised requirements prescribed are "All x-ray installations shall have a radiologist/related medical practitioner or a qualified x-ray technologist, with adequate knowledge of radiation protection, to operate the x-ray unit." Our attention was also drawn to yet another communication dated 26/11/2012 under which for the X-Ray Technologist what is made compulsory is Radiographer's/X-ray technologist's course (including in-field training in diagnostic radiology) passed from a recognised institution/Board/University.
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(12 of 14) [CW-7160/2020] Based on such literature it was strenuously contended before us that the State Government had no authority to deviate from the qualifications prescribed by the AERB for the post of Assistant Radiographer. The prescription of having passed Radiographers Technologist Course from a recognised institution/Board/University was unshakable. To buttress this argument our attention was also drawn to a judgment of Division Bench of this court dated 19/07/2018 in case of Gabbar Singh Meena and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (DBCWP No.13280/2018) in which in relation to the challenge to the State Government policy stand of the State Government was that the State cannot ignore the safety code for medical diagnostic X-ray equipments and installation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that all the petitioners are working satisfactorily in the State service since long. Any change in the recruitment rules requiring higher education qualifications cannot be applied to the petitioners.
The State Government has filed a reply and opposed the petition principally taking the stand that recruitment rules have been framed in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution and the rules are legal and valid.
Learned counsel for the petitioners may be correct in pointing out that the work of Radiographer (in the present case Assistant Radiographer) may involve dealing with X-Rays and equipments in the concerned field and therefore it may fall within the ambit of AERB to prescribe the safety standards and measures. It is therefore that all concerned including the State Government have correctly posed before this court in case of Gabbar Singh Meena (supra) that the state authorities are bound by such safety standards laid down. If part of such safety standard (Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM) (13 of 14) [CW-7160/2020] directives is to prescribe minimum qualification for any person to hold the post, the same would also have to be followed. However by no means this implies that the State Government is devoid of its powers to prescribe eligibility criteria for posts under the State service. Article 309 of the Constitution pertains to recruitment and conditions of service of persons for serving Union or a State. It provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Act of the appropriate Legislature may regulate recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State. The powers to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of a person in the State service thus flow from this Article. The State Government therefore in exercise of such constitutional powers desired to amend the existing recruitment rules by making eligibility criteria for the post in question more stringent. In our view, the same is in no manner in conflict with the safety code prescribed by AERB.
To put it differently the State Government is bound to maintain the safety standards and follow the safety measures prescribed by the AERB in the safety code in relation to dealing with 'radiation' as defined in Section 2(h) of the Atomic Energy Act. However this does not restrict or take away the powers of the State Government to prescribe appropriate eligibility conditions including the minimum qualifications required for recruitment to the post in question. It is not the case where the amended qualifications breach the standers prescribed by the AERB in the safety code. It merely requires the candidate to possess higher qualifications in order to be eligible.
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
(14 of 14) [CW-7160/2020] The petitioners are not appointed on regular basis in government service. Any change in the recruitment rules will apply to all candidates who desire selection in government service after the amendments in the rules.
In the result, we find no merit in the petitions. The same are dismissed.
All pending applications are also disposed of.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
ANIL KUMAR GOYAL/BMG/9-11
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:20:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)